4.5 Article

Carbohydrate supplementation improves time-trial cycle performance during energy deficit at 4,300-m altitude

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 867-876

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00019.2005

关键词

endurance performance; glucose; hypoxemia; prolonged exercise; ergogenic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbohydrate supplementation (CHOS) typically improves prolonged time-trial (TT) performance at sea level (SL). This study determined whether CHOS also improves TT performance at high altitude (ALT; 4,300 M) despite increased hypoxemia and while in negative energy balance (similar to 1,250 kcal/day). Two groups of fasting, fitness-matched men performed a 720-kJ cycle TT at SL and while living at ALT on days 3 (ALT3) and 10 (ALT10). Eight men drank a 10% carbohydrate solution (0.175 g/kg body wt) and eight drank a placebo (PLA; double blind) at the start of and every 15 min of the TT. Blood glucose during each TT was higher (P < 0.05) for CHOS than for PLA. At SL, TT duration (similar to 59 min) and watts (similar to 218 or similar to 61% of peak watts; %SL Wpeak) were similar for both groups. At ALT, the TT was longer for both groups (P < 0.01) but was shorter for CHOS than for PLA on ALT3 (means +/- SE: 80 +/- 7 vs. 105 +/- 9 min; P < 0.01) and ALT10 (77 +/- 7 vs. 90 5 min; P < 0.01). At ALT, %SL Wpeak was reduced (P < 0.01) with the reduction on ALT3 being larger for PLA (to 33 +/- 3%) than for CHOS (to 43 +/- 2%; P < 0.05). On ALT3, 02 saturation fell similarly from 84 +/- 2% at rest to 73 +/- 1% during the TT for both groups (P < 0.05), and on ALT10 O-2 saturation fell more (P < 0.02) for CHOS (91 +/- 1 to 76 +/- 2%) than for PLA (90 +/- 1 to 81 +/- 1%). %SL Wpeak and 02 saturation were inversely related during the TT for both groups at ALT (r >= -0.76; P <= 0.03). It was concluded that, despite hypoxemia exacerbated by exercise, CHOS greatly improved TT performance at ALT in which there was a negative energy balance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据